by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
March 1, 2004
The media loves using that phrase whenever an innocent person winds up being the victim of a violent crime. Those words have been used constantly in the Toronto media when describing the brutal death of Suzette augustin. augustin, a visitor to Toronto went into a travel agency early on a Friday evening to pick up her airline ticket to return to her native St. Lucia. She walked into a robbery in progress and was stabbed several times in the abdomen. The 26-year-old mother of one died later that night while on the operating table. The owner of the travel agency was also stabbed and succumbed to his injuries a few days later.
augustin made the decision to do business with that particular agency and chose the time to pick up her ticket. But to describe those decisions as "wrong" somehow implies that she was guilty of at least poor judgment or taking actions that led to her own demise.
The use of the phrase would not perhaps not be so bad if much of the mainstream media that uses it weren’t so soft on crime--the media outlets that praise social programs and group hugs to combat violent crime but are against more police and harsher penalties. To even remotely suggest that a young woman who goes into a travel agency to pick up a ticket is somehow even remotely "wrong" is, to use our Prime Minister’s now favourite word--despicable.
Pierre Bourque--he’s no Matt Drudge
Pierre Bourque has been touted as Canada’s Matt Drudge since he began his Internet site, bourque.org. Like the Drudge Report, Bourque provides links to current news articles, mainly, although not exclusively, Canadian. Except for the occasional leaking of rumours (such as the fact that the unofficial Liberal leadership race has begun to replace Paul Martin) he doesn’t break news like his american counterpart does. Matt Drudge gained his fame as the first journalist to break the news of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal.
apart from original content, the Canadian site is no Drudge Report. Bourque linked several complimentary newspaper articles about Belinda Stronach one day. There is nothing per se wrong with that except the site also featured an advertising banner for Belinda.ca. a couple of weeks after the ad came down, a Stephen Harper banner appeared. The appearance of political ads makes you wonder how objective the site is when it comes to posting (or not posting) links to articles about the Conservative leadership race.
and if that wasn’t enough, one link was about how to write a book. When you clicked on it, the overly lengthy "article" turned out to be an ad for a writing course. If Bourque is going to do that, he should at least do what Newsmax.com does and clearly mark it as an advertisement.
Liberal scandal--why it’s the opposition’s fault of course
CBC, and particularly, Julie Van Dusen, are continuing their unabashed defense of Paul Martin and the Liberal government over the advertising contract scandal. When the opposition (usually the Conservatives) question the government in the House, Van Dusen continues to put the Liberal spin on it, pointing out that the questions are preventing the government from carrying out its agenda. although Van Dusen can certainly communicate the government’s position better than the stuttering, "I know nothing, I saw nothing" prime minister, there should be a real concern about Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster spinning the news for the Natural Governing Party.
It seems taxpayers are being ripped off twice--first by the mishandling of public funds in the ad agency fiasco and then by CBC doing p.r. work for the PM.
But again, this is Canada--what else can you expect?